Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.P.Nos.19703,19704,19705,19713 & 22929/2017 2.2. Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) deals with the determination of tariff for supply of electricity to generating companies. The TNERC’s Terms and Conditions for the Determination of Tariff Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred as “the 2005 Regulations”) was notified in the Government gazette on 03.08.2005. These regulations were made applicable to generation of electricity from conventional sources. The same is clear from a reading of Regulation 1(6), which categorically states that it is not applicable to co-generation, captive power plants and generation of electricity from renewable sources of energy such as solar, wind etc. 2.3. The TNERC separately issued regulations for power procurement from renewable sources of energy. The notification was issued on 08.02.2008 and it was called as the New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter referred as “the 2008 Regulations”). A reading of Regulation 1(3) makes it clear that the regulations will apply to all new and renewable source based generating plants.

2.5. The Government of Tamil Nadu announced the solar energy policy 2012 in G.O.Ms.No.121, dated 19.10.20212. On such announcement, the petitioners wanted to take advantage of the policy and they have all set up 1 MW solar PV power plants.

2.6. The TNERC in exercise of its powers under Sections 181, 61(h), 62 and 86(1)(e) of the Act, r/w the relevant policies, issued Tariff Order No.7 of 2014, dated 12.09.2014, which is a comprehensive tariff order on solar power. This tariff order was issued based on the 2008 Regulations. Clause 6 of the tariff order makes it clear that the tariff fixed in this order will be applicable to all solar power plants “commissioned” during the control period. Clause 10.2 fixes the tariff at Rs. 7.01 per unit for solar PV projects. It is relevant to take note of the fact that the TNERC had taken into https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.P.Nos.19703,19704,19705,19713 & 22929/2017 consideration various factors while fixing the tariff rate. Clause 11.6 states that the control period of the tariff order is one year. The TNERC fixed the control period as one year after taking into consideration the fact that the capital cost of solar modules was extremely volatile and was subject to changes within a short time.

2.10. The petitioners started raising invoices at the rate of Rs.7.01 per unit for the energy injected into the grid. They were also paying the open access charges and meter reading charges for utilising TANGEDCO’s grid. This was going on till the beginning of the year 2017 at which point of time, the impugned communication was issued by the TANGEDCO to the effect that the commissioned solar power plants of the petitioners failed to achieve COD on or before 31.03.2016 i.e, within the control period fixed by the TNERC and therefore the petitioners are entitled for tariff at the rate of Rs.5.10 per unit as per the TNERC Order No.2 of 2016, dated 28.03.2016. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.P.Nos.19703,19704,19705,19713 & 22929/2017 Aggrieved by the same, all these Writ Petitions have been filed before this Court.

7. The learned Additional Advocate General has raised the issue of the maintainability of the Writ Petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy before TNERC under Section 86(1)(f) of the Act. Therefore, this Court will take up this issue for consideration before going into the merits of the case. It is true that the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy is a ground for this Court not to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, the issue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/  W.P.Nos.19703,19704,19705,19713 & 22929/2017 involved, does not pertain to adjudication of a dispute between the petitioners and TANGEDCO. If that is the case, this Court would have referred the parties before TNERC. However, the present case involves only an interpretation of the Tariff Regulations, Tariff Orders and Power Purchase Agreement and therefore, there is no requirement to send the parties to the TNERC and the issue that has been raised can be decided by this Court in the present Writ Petitions. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General on the maintainability of the Writ Petitions is hereby rejected.